Sri R.Govinda Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present batch of appeals have been filed against the common Impugned Order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.43342/2015 and Connected Matters. The learned Single Judge, while disposing of the Writ Petitions, allowed the acquisition proceedings over agricultural lands on the condition that the Respondents shall obtain necessary clearances from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MoEFCC’), and quashed the acquisition proceedings over converted lands, except for the purpose of forming roads as per the Comprehensive Development Plan.

The landowners are the owners of agricultural lands situated in Indalawadi, Konasandra and Bommandahalli Villages, Anekal Taluk.

The State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings in respect of lands situated in Konasandra, Bommandanahalli, Kadujakanahalli, Indlavadi, and Baghanadoddi villages of Anekal Taluk for the purpose of formation of a residential layout – Suryanagar 4^th Phase Layout by Karnataka Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘KHB’), and issued three Preliminary Notifications dated 19.10.2013 u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1894’), proposing to acquire 2220 acres 02 guntas of land for the proposed project. The extent of lands in the Indlavadi, Bagganadoddi, Kadujakkanahalli, Konasandra, and Bommandhahalli Villages, Jigani and Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk are as follows:

Subsequent to the preliminary notifications being issued, the landowners filed their objections dated 23.12.2013 and 18.03.2014 to the acquisition proceedings before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘SLAO’) as per Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, contending that the said lands, being used for agriculture and horticulture purposes, are the only source of livelihood to the Landowners. On 18.03.2014, the SLAO prepared an inquiry report as per Section 5A of the 1894 Act, rejecting the contentions of the landowners and acquiring the lands based on the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer.

The State Government issued three Final Declarations dated 12.03.2015, and the same were published on 02.04.2015 in the Official Gazette u/s 6(1) of the Act of 1894. The extent of lands sought to be acquired as per the Final Declaration was as follows:

The Landowners filed W.P.No.43342/2015 along with connected matters before the Learned Single Bench of this Court, challenging the acquisition proceedings and notifications dated 19.10.2013 and 12.03.2015. Vide order dated 16.10.2015, the Learned Single Judge granted an interim stay on all further acquisition proceedings pursuant to the acquisition notifications, relying on the letter dated 12.01.2015 issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bannerghatta National Park, to the SLAO, stating that the Eco-sensitive Zone/buffer zone is located 10 kms from the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park.

On 03.06.2023, the KHB was granted Environment Clearance by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority – Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SEIAA-Karnataka’) for the proposed residential project. The Environmental Clearance was granted only to the extent of lands not sub judice in the Writ Petitions pending before the Learned Single Judge.

The interim order of stay dated 16.10.2015, granted by the Learned Single Judge, was modified on 10.12.2024 to allow the construction of roads over the project and allowed for construction being carried out on lands wherein such construction had started. Stay was granted on acquiring fresh lands for fresh construction. Vide order dated 13.01.2025, the Learned Single Judge of this Court partly allowed the Writ Petitions, allowing the acquisition proceedings in respect of agricultural lands upon the affidavit filed by the KHB that the acquisition proceedings will be carried out after obtaining relevant clearances from the MoEFCC in respect of the subject lands, and quashing the acquisition proceedings in respect of lands converted for non-agricultural purposes.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present batch of appeals are filed. One set of appeals are filed by the landowners of the agricultural lands, and the other set of appeals are filed by KHB, aggrieved by the orders of acquisition of agricultural lands and non-acquisition of converted lands respectively.

On 11.12.2025, this Court granted an interim order, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to possession, etc. The Order is as follows:

Vide order dated 15.06.2026, an interim order of stay on acquisition proceedings was granted by this Court. The order is reproduced as follows:

Vide order dated 10.07.2026, we directed the Secretary, Government of India, MoEFCC to file his personal affidavit, on the following points:

Pursuant to the Impugned Order, the KHB applied for modification of the Environmental Clearance dated 03.06.2023.

The Modified Environmental Clearance was granted on 27.01.2026 by the SEIAA-Karnataka. As per the directions in the Impugned Order, the agricultural lands were to be subject to the acquisition proceedings, and converted lands were to be excluded from the acquisition proceedings. The Environmental Clearance was obtained to the extent of agricultural lands.

On 10.08.2026, the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Mr. Tanmay Kumar, filed his affidavit to the points raised by this court in order dated 10.07.2026. It reads as follows:

Learned Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the landowners submitted that the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and arbitrary.

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the proposed project required necessary Environment Clearances. Reliance was placed on the notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the MoEFCC, Government of India, wherein all developmental activities including township and area development projects would require Environmental Clearance.

Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the proposed project required recommendations and clearance from the Standing Committee from the National Board for Wildlife. Reliance was placed on the Guidelines issued by the Wildlife Division of the MoEFCC dated 19.12.2012, which provided that clearance from the Standing Committee of National Board for Wildlife was required in cases where any non-forest activities to be undertaken falls within the boundaries of National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Tiger Reserves, Conservation Reserves and Eco-Sensitivity Zones, or if the same are not demarcated, within 10kms of its boundaries.

It was contended that the objections filed by the appellants before the SLAO were not considered, thereby being in violation of the procedure laid down in Rule 5 of the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules 1965. Further, a copy of the report filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer of KHB before the Respondent No.3 – SLAO was not given to the appellants. It was further contended that the Impugned order suffers from discrimination, as it differentiates between, and discriminates against persons who own agricultural land and non-agricultural land. The impugned order allowed the acquisition proceedings over agricultural lands and quashed the same over converted lands on the ground that the landowners of converted lands were ready to pay betterment charges and exclude their lands from the acquisition proceedings. The same opportunity not being given to the agricultural lands owners amounts to discrimination and violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It was submitted that, the final notification dated 12.03.2015 was issued beyond a period of 1 year, thereby not being in compliance with the procedure under section 6 of the 1894 Act. Reliance was placed on ASHOK KUMAR & ORS V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER (2007) 3 SCC 470 and ANIL KUMAR GUPTA V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS (2012) 12 SCC 443.

It was further submitted that, the KHB had given undertaking before the National Green Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT, Chennai’) in Application No. 145 of 2016 that all statutory clearances for the proposed project would be obtained in accordance with law. It was further submitted that Respondent No.4 – Deputy Conservator of Forests admitted in his Statement of Objections to W.P.Nos.43344-50/2015 that the lands belonging to the Appellants fall within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ESZ’) of Bannerghatta National Park. The ESZ around the Bannerghatta National Park was determined and notified vide on notification issued by the MoEFCC dated 15.06.2016, wherein the ESZ area was measure at 268.96 Sq. Km with an extent of 100 Mts. – 4.5 Kms. such ESZ included the appellants villages. This was followed by an affidavit dated 25.10.2018 filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forests in the said Writ Petition, providing that not only do the lands fall within the ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park, but also that the clearance from the Standing Committee for NBWL was mandatory as per the order of the Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 in W.P. 460/2004.

Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance on interim order dated 16.01.2020 in W.P.47/2020 passed by this Court, wherein this Court directed the Respondents to ensure that no commercial or development activities were undertaken within a radius of 10 Kms of the Bannerghatta National Park. This interim order still stands and is not vacated.

It was submitted that the MoEFCC issued a re-notification dated 11.03.2020 wherein the extent of ESZ around Bannerghatta National Park was reduced to 100 Mts. – 1 Km. Even as per the said re-notification, the lands of the Appellants fall within the ESZ.

It was further submitted that KHB obtained Environmental Clearance from the SEIAA–Karnataka for the proposed project on 03.06.2023. Although such clearance was obtained, the clearance was void on the following grounds: (i) the Environmental Clearance from EIA was issued without obtaining the clearance from the Standing Board of NBWL as per the directions of the Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 and the notification of the MoEFCC dated 19.12.2012, and (ii) the survey nos. of the Appellants’ lands are not mentioned in the said Environmental Clearance. Thus, the said clearance is contrary to law and is a nullity.

It was further contended that the re-notification dated 11.03.2020 was referred to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) for its examination and recommendations as per the order of the Supreme Court dated 08.10.2025 in W.P.202/1995 (T.N. Godavarman case). Vide report dated 05.01.2026, the CEC submitted its report which recommended the MoEFCC to withdraw the re-notification as it excluded the scientifically identified elephant corridors and ecologically important patches of Bannerghatta National Park. It further recommended to restore the original notification dated 15.06.2016 which specified the extent of ESZ to 100 Mts. – 4.5 Kms. It further stated that the proposed project adjoins the boundary of the ESZ around the Bannerghatta National Park, and construction of the same would have irreversible environmental consequences.

Learned Senior Counsel Sri D.R. Ravi Shankar appearing for the KHB and SLAO submitted that all necessary clearances were obtained by the KHB for the proposed project. The same are as follows:

It was further submitted that the proposed project is valid in terms of the Draft Notification dated 15.06.2016 and also in terms of the Final Notification dated 11.03.2020. As per the Draft Notification dated 15.06.2016, the proposed project comes within the ‘Regulated Activities’ as stipulated in Sl. No. 11 (b) of the Table, allowing for construction for bona fide local needs beyond 1 km up to the extent of ESZ i.e., 1km – 4.5km from the ESZ. As per the final notification, the extent was reduced from 4.5km to 1km. Thus, the proposed project, even though covering lands within the ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park, is not invalid in terms of the Final Notification.

On the interim order of stay dated 16.01.2020 granted by this Court in W.P. 47/2020, prohibiting all commercial and development activities prospectively, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the interim order of stay stood vacated in light of issuance of the Final Notification dated 11.03.2020. Further, the petitioner’s IA for stay of the final notification in W.P. 47/2020 was not allowed.

On the order that the converted lands were excluded from the scope of acquisition proceedings as per the Impugned Order, it was submitted that the Circular dated 03.03.2007 bearing No. CI 151 SPQ 2007 and Circular dated 18.03.2013 bearing No. CI 590 SPQ 2012 related to the acquisition of lands by the Karnataka Industrial areas development Board (KIADB) for industrial purposes. Thus, they do not operate as a bar on acquisition of converted lands by KHB for the proposed project.

Mere conversion of lands does not create an absolute bar against their acquisition by the State for public purpose, which includes housing scheme. Reliance was placed on the affidavit filed by the Housing Commissioner wherein it was stated that the converted lands could be excluded from acquisition proceedings only when a notification u/s 4(1) of the 1894 Act was issued and the duly approved layouts were formed. Conversion of lands cannot be a ground for exclusion from acquisition proceedings when no layout is formed. Reliance was placed on the decisions in S.S. DARSHAN V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [(1996) 7 SCC 302], JAI NARAIN V. UNION OF INDIA [(1996) 1 SCC 9], and JUNJAMMA V. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ILR 2005 KAR 608), wherein the principle that mere conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use does not impede the power of the State to acquire the land for public purpose, which includes housing schemes.

Learned Senior Counsel, along with Learned Advocate General for the State Shri Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for the State Government, Deputy Conservator of Forests, as well as the Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement, submitted that the acquisition proceedings were in strict accordance with the procedure of law, including obtaining prior sanction of the Government u/s 18 of the KHB Act, 1962 before the issuance of preliminary notification u/s 4 of the 1894 Act. It was further submitted that acquisition for public purpose would override the fact that lands were converted for non-agricultural uses. The quashing of Preliminary and Final Notifications is not justified in law as the considerations of the Landowners were heard and taken into consideration as per Section 5A of the 1894 Act.

Learned Advocate General submitted that the time limit for passing of award under the 1894 Act was extended vide a notification dated 04.01.2020 due to the pendency of the Writ Petitions in W.P. 43342/2015 and Connected Matters, along with an interim order of stay on the acquisition proceedings dated 16.12.2015, which was subsequently modified on 10.12.2024. It was further submitted that as per the order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, the ADLR conducted a survey and submitted a report, wherein it was observed that the lands under acquisition were away from the ESZ of the Bannerghatta National Park. The said ESZ was determined as per the re-notification dated 11.03.2020, determining the extent of ESZ to 100 Mts. – 1 km from the boundary of the National Park.

Before we delve into the issues at hand, we must take note of the Bannerghatta National Park and its ecological importance.

Bannerghatta National Park is situated approximately 20– 22 km south of Bengaluru in the Anekal hill ranges. It covers an area of approximately 260.51 Sq.km and extends across portions of Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramanagara districts. The National Park comprises tropical dry deciduous, dry thorn, scrub and moist mixed-deciduous forests, together with riverine vegetation occurring along valleys, streams and drainage lines.

The National Park forms part of a wider forest landscape that is ecologically connected with the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in Karnataka and the Thali, Javalagiri and adjoining reserve forests in Tamil Nadu. The larger landscape constitutes an important catchment and watershed for streams and tributaries contributing to the Cauvery river system. It also performs significant ecological functions, including the conservation of biodiversity, maintenance of hydrological processes, carbon sequestration and the provision of ecosystem services to the Bengaluru metropolitan region.

The National Park supports a diverse range of fauna, including Asian elephants, leopards, Indian gaur, sambar, chital, sloth bear, dhole, wild pig, barking deer, mouse deer, striped hyena, jungle cat, pangolin, slender loris, porcupine and other primate species. Its avifauna includes peafowl, grey junglefowl, raptors, woodpeckers, parakeets, cuckoos, orioles and drongos, among other species. The National Park also supports a variety of reptiles and amphibians, including pythons, cobras, vipers, monitor lizards, tortoises, frogs and toads. The yellow-throated bulbul has also been recorded in the landscape.

The National Park is of particular significance as an elephant habitat and movement landscape. It forms part of the Mysore Elephant Reserve and is connected, either directly or functionally, with the Cauvery landscape, the Hosur–Krishnagiri forests, the Nilgiri Biosphere region and the wider forest complex of southern Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The available material indicates that elephants use the National Park and adjoining forests seasonally and move across the boundaries of the protected area in response to the availability of food, water and suitable habitat.

At the same time, the National Park has a relatively narrow configuration and is subject to an extensive interface with human settlements, roads, infrastructure, agriculture and other land uses. Habitat fragmentation and bottlenecks in adjoining areas have affected ecological connectivity and have contributed to recurring instances of human–elephant conflict. The conservation of the National Park therefore requires consideration of the wider connected landscape, including adjoining forests, movement routes, water catchments and habitat patches outside the notified boundary.

Elephants are wide-ranging and highly mobile animals requiring access to interconnected habitats for feeding, watering, breeding, seasonal movement and dispersal. Their ecological role extends beyond the limits of any individual protected area. Through their movement across forests, grasslands, river systems and adjoining habitats, elephants contribute to seed dispersal, regeneration of vegetation and the maintenance of ecological processes.

The conservation of elephant populations cannot, therefore, be considered solely with reference to isolated protected areas. It also requires the preservation of ecological linkages and movement corridors connecting such areas. Fragmentation caused by roads, railways, settlements, mining, industrial activity and other infrastructure may obstruct traditional movement routes, restrict access to habitat and water resources, isolate populations and increase the likelihood of human–elephant conflict. The protection of elephant habitat consequently includes the protection of the corridors and linkages through which, elephants access and utilise the wider landscape.

The publication titled 'Elephant Corridors of India, 2023', issued by the Project Elephant Division of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, identifies three elephant corridors associated with the Bannerghatta landscape: (i) Karadikkal–Madeswara Corridor, connecting Karadikkal State Forest and Madeswara State Forest and facilitating year-round elephant movement, including the movement of large herds; (ii) Tali–Bilikal Corridor, an interstate corridor connecting the Bannerghatta landscape with the North Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary in Tamil Nadu and identified as being subject to significant threats; and (iii) Bilikal–Jowlagiri Corridor, a narrow interstate corridor connecting Bannerghatta with the North Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and reported to be affected by haphazard barriers and other obstructions.

These corridors facilitate seasonal and long-distance movement, preserve habitat permeability, enable access to food and water, and assist in maintaining the genetic and ecological continuity of elephant populations. Their obstruction may increase the confinement of elephants within fragmented habitats and may consequently intensify encounters between elephants and human settlements. The Bannerghatta–Cauvery– Hosur landscape must therefore be assessed as an interconnected elephant conservation landscape, and the protection of the identified corridors is relevant to maintaining the functional integrity of that larger landscape.

Before we go into the issues at hand, it would be necessary to extract Sections 4(1), 5A, and 6(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

A bare perusal of the provisions would imply that the time limit for the issuance of final declaration u/s 6 of the Act is one year from the date of publication of preliminary notification issued u/s 4 of the 1894 Act. Section 4(1) provides that the date of the publication of the notification shall be the last of the dates of two events: (i) publication in the local newspapers and (ii) causing public notice. As per the reading of the provisions, it can be said that the time limit of one year, as stipulated in Clause (ii) of the Proviso to Section 6, shall begin from the date of publication in newspaper or the date of causing public notice of the substance of the notification, whichever is later. In the present case, the Preliminary Notification was issued on 19.10.2013, published in the Karnataka Gazette on 14.11.2013, published in the local newspaper ‘Vijayvani’ on 28.11.2013, and was caused public notice at Village Chavadi on 14.03.2014.

It can be observed that the objections to the acquisition proceedings were filed by the Landowners on 23.12.2013, being within the 30-days window before the SLAO as per Section 5A of the 1894 Act. Subsequently, further objections were filed on 18.03.2014 following the notification published in the Village Chavadi dated 14.03.2014. The fact that the Landowners filed their objections before the SLAO on 23.12.2013, before the public notice dated 14.03.2014 was caused vide publication in the Village Chavadi, makes it clear that the Landowners were well aware of the acquisition proceedings and have taken measures by filing necessary objections before the SLAO prior to the publication of notification in the Village Chavadi. However, the mere filing of objections dated 23.12.2013 before the SLAO does not imply that the time limit of one year begins from the date of publication in the newspaper i.e., 28.11.2013. As per the Act, the period of one year begins from the last date of publication or causing public notice of the substance of the notification. In the present case, the substance of the Notifications was published in the Village Chavadi on 14.03.2014, the Landowners filed their objections on 18.03.2014, and the Final Declarations were issued on 12.03.2015. Thus, on a combined reading of Sections 4 and 5A, the proceedings u/s 5A of the 1894 Act began from the date of publication of the Preliminary notification i.e., from the date of last publication (the causation of public notice of the substance of the notification in a public place.

In KHUB CHAND V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AIR 1967 SC 1074), it was laid down that the object of Section 4 was to give intimation to the person whose land was sought to be acquired. In the present case, pursuant to the publication of the Preliminary notification u/s 4, objections were filed by the landowners on 23.12.2013. However, the proceedings u/s 5A were initiated only after the last publication i.e., causing public notice of the substance of the notification dated 14.03.2014. As laid down in the case of KHUB CHAND V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (supra), the provisions of a statute conferring the power on the government to compulsorily acquire lands shall be strictly construed. Thus, the time limit of one year as specified in Clause (ii) of Proviso to Section 6 must be strictly followed by the respondents, and the same was adhered to in the present case.

The contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Landowners that the time gap between: 19.10.2013 – the date of publication of the Preliminary Notification in the Official Gazette and 12.03.2015 – the date of publication of Final Declaration, is more than 1 year, thereby violating the time limit as specified in the 1894 Act cannot be accepted. On a strict reading of the 1894 Act, the time period between the date of last publication of the Preliminary Notification – 14.03.2014, and the date of Final Declaration – 12.03.2015, is within 1 year, thereby following the procedure as laid down by the 1894 Act. The Supreme Court in EUGENIO MISQUITA V. STATE OF GOA [(1997) 8 SCC 47] held as follows:

The Supreme Court in EUGENIO MISQUITA (supra) followed its decision in the case of KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI V. MAKRAND SINGH [(1995) 2 SCC 497], wherein it was held as follows:

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (1997 SCC ONLINE KAR 587) has rightly held as follows:

Even though there is a delay between the date of publication in the newspaper – 28.11.2013 and the date of the causing of public notice – 14.03.2014, the same cannot vitiate the acquisition proceedings. It has been consistently held by the Courts that mere delay between the publication in newspapers and causing public notice does not vitiate the acquisition proceedings. In STATE OF HARYANA V. RAGHUBIR DAYAL [(1995) 1 SCC 133], the Supreme Court held as follows:

The cases of ASHOK KUMAR & ORS V. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER [2007) 3 SCC 470] and ANIL KUMAR GUPTA V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS [(2012) 12 SCC 443] as relied upon by the Learned Senior Counsel for the Landowners that the proceedings are lapsed due to the Final Declarations being issued beyond a period of one year is not applicable to the present case. Thus, we do not find any force in the contention of the Landowners that the Final Declaration was issued beyond a period of one year from the date of publication of Preliminary Notification. We have no hesitation to hold that the Preliminary Notifications dated 19.10.2013 and Final Declarations dated 12.03.2015 are valid in law, and the acquisition proceedings are not lapsed on this count.

The next issue which arises for consideration is whether the impugned land acquisition proceedings undertaken for the housing scheme of the Karnataka Housing Board in respect of 2404 acres of land in Konasandra, Bommandahalli, Kadujakkanahalli, Indlawadi and Bagganadoddi Villages of Anekal Taluk known as "Suryanagar 4th Stage" are violative of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the relevant notifications in respect of the ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park as well as against the report of the CEC and public interest?

Initially, three different preliminary notifications under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were issued to acquire 2220.12 acres of land in Konasandra, Bommandahalli, Kadujakkanahalli, Indlawadi and Bagganadoddi Villages, Jigani and Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The proceedings under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act were conducted by considering the objections filed by the landowners, and three final notifications under Section 6(1) were issued on 12.03.2015 acquiring 1938.13 acres of land. The final notifications were published in the Karnataka Gazette on 02.04.2015 in respect of five villages as mentioned hereunder: -

Initially, the interim orders were granted by the writ Court on 02.09.2015 in W.P.No.36164/2015 (W.A.No.437/2025) against dispossession, if not already dispossessed. On 16.10.2015, interim orders were granted in other writ petitions.

Thereafter, some of the landowners, who are the petitioners in W.P.Nos.43344-43350/2015 and other connected writ petitions, filed Original Application No.145/2016 before the NGT, Chennai contending that the entire land acquired through Final Notifications dated 12.03.2015 would fall within the ESZ and there was no environmental clearance obtained. The NGT had granted an interim order against the SEIAA directing not to pass any order on the application submitted in the year 2015-16 by the KHB for environmental clearance. The said original application came to be disposed of with liberty to the SEIAA to consider the application filed by the KHB in accordance with the law, on accepting the submission of the KHB that they would proceed with the construction work only upon obtaining all necessary clearances from the concerned authorities.

The land acquisition proceedings continued and the State Government, vide order dated 04.01.2020, extended the time period for passing of the award by issuing a notification. The Government had evolved 50:50 land-sharing scheme in respect of Suryanagar 4th Phase project. The Government had given approval to such proposal for 50:50 land-sharing vide Notification dated 07.09.2020.

The MoEFCC, Government of India, in exercise of its powers conferred under Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder, had issued the Notification dated 15.06.2016 in respect of the ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park. In terms of the said notification, an area measuring 268.96 Sq.Kms. with an extent varying from 100 Mts. to 4.5 Kms. around the boundary of Bannerghatta National Park covering a total of 77 villages, had been declared as the ESZ. However, vide subsequent Notification dated 30.10.2018, the MoEFCC had proposed to reduce the ESZ from 268.96 Sq.Kms. to 168.84 Sq.Kms. with the extent varying from 100 Mts. to 1 Km. around the boundary of the park.

I.A.No.138323/2025 came to be filed in W.P.(C) No.202/1995 before the Supreme Court by one K.B. Belliappa and others challenging the exclusion of scientifically identified elephant corridors and other ecologically significant land parcels, which are integral to maintaining the habitat contiguity and landscape-level ecological linkages from the area notified as 'Bannerghatta National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone'. The Supreme Court, on 08.10.2025, passed the following order: -

The CEC, in compliance of the order dated 08.10.2025, has submitted the detailed report dated 05.01.2026 before the Supreme Court. In paragraph 50 of the report, the CEC has flagged serious concern of disastrous and irreversible consequences regarding the housing project viz., Suryanagar Layout (KHB Surya City), which is immediately abutting the revised ESZ boundary of Bannerghatta National Park. It has been stated that the project, being of considerable magnitude, would result in irreversible modification of land contiguous to a protected forest, raising serious concern regarding absence of any scientific assessment, evaluation of cumulative environmental impacts etc. Paragraph 50 of the said report is extracted hereunder: -

In paragraph 52, it has been mentioned that Herandyapanahalli, Tippuru, Bijahalli, Bommasandra, Hosadurga, Salbanni and Guddeveeranahosahalli Villages are situated along elephant movement pathways connecting the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and Bannerghatta National Park.

Paragraph 52 would read as under: -

The CEC has finally recommended that the reduction of the ESZ around Bannerghatta National Park from 268.96 Sq.Kms. to 168.84 Sq.Kms. in the Final Notification dated 11.03.2020 would have disastrous consequences resulting in exclusion of ecologically important patches, creation of contiguous unprotected land pockets and weakening of identified wildlife corridors, thereby undermining the fundamental objectives of the ESZ framework as set out in the ‘Guidelines for Declaration of Eco-Sensitive Zones’ dated 09.02.2011. 87. As per the 2011 Guidelines, all areas which contain sensitive corridors, which in this case include the elephant corridors, must be included in the ESZ area, even if it is beyond the 10km limit. However, as per the Revised Notification dated 11.03.2020, only parts of the three identified elephant corridors fall within the reduced ESZ. Thus, some parts of the corridors are not accorded protection within the ESZ areas and not forming part of protected areas. It further stated that several ecologically important patches, despite their clear ecological significance and contiguity with the National park landscape, have been excluded from the Revised ESZ Notification dated 11.03.2020. These patches directly influence the habitat continuity, wildlife movement, and ecological stability of the Bannerghatta National Park. The CEC observed that such patches, which ought to form part of the Bannerghatta National Park ESZ, should not have been excluded from the protected zone, and require inclusion to ensure effective conservation and preservation of the ecological integrity of the ESZ. It has been further said that in absence of any cogent, scientific, ecological or rational justification for the reduction of the ESZ extent from 268.96 Kms. to 168.84 Sq.Kms., the said reduction is not justified and the original ESZ extent of 268.96 Sq.Kms. is to be restored. The final recommendations are in paragraph 60, which would read as under: -

The State Government itself, in its objection before the writ Court, has taken a stand that the lands in Indalawadi, Konasandra and Bommandahalli Villages in which the lands of the landowners are situated, fall within the ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park. The Assistant Conservator of Forests, in his personal affidavit filed in the writ Court, has specifically stated that the lands of the landowners fall within the ESZ of Bannerghatta National Park and in view of the guidelines issued by the MoEFCC, prior environmental clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife is mandatory. The KHB has not produced the same and has instead produced the Wildlife Mitigation Plan as provided by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife and Chief Wildlife Warden), which was granted on payment of Rs. 1.5 crores. No such prior clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife has been taken by the KHB before undertaking such a project of huge magnitude.

In a Public Interest Litigation in W.P.No.47/2020 (PIL), vide interim order dated 16.01.2020, this Court specifically directed the KHB to ensure that no commercial or development activities are undertaken within 10 Kms. radius around the Bannerghatta National Park until finalisation of the Notification dated 15.06.2016. The said notification is still to be finalised inasmuch as the CEC has submitted its report for restoration of 268.96 Sq.Kms. area as the ESZ. The environmental clearance given by the SEIAA on 03.06.2023 to undertake the said housing project by the KHB is against the guidelines issued by the MoEFCC as no prior environmental clearance from the Standing Committee was obtained. Further, the entire project would fall within the ESZ of 268.96 Sq.Kms. around Bannerghatta National Park, and the issue of reducing the area of the ESZ to 168.84 Sq.Kms. is still at large before the Supreme Court. Unless the KHB were to obtain necessary environmental clearance for the project from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, the SEIAA should not have given the clearance.

We are, thus, of the opinion that when the CEC itself, in its report, has flagged serious concern for undertaking the housing project of such a magnitude and the report is yet to be accepted or rejected by the Supreme Court, undertaking the said housing project is against the relevant provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the statutory guidelines issued by the MoEFCC and also against public interest, as the effectiveness of the ESZ and its role in conservation and mitigation of human-wildlife conflict has not been taken into consideration before undertaking such a project. This project would seriously affect the Karadikkal-Madeshwara Corridor, and the Forest Department of Karnataka has already flagged the likelihood of increased human-wildlife conflict arising from this development. Ignoring all such concerns, the housing project has been undertaken.

Elephant corridors constitute critical ecological linkages and are indispensable to the long-term conservation of both elephants and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Such corridors provide the necessary right of passage between fragmented habitats, facilitate seasonal and long-range movement, enable genetic exchange and reduce the ecological and demographic consequences of habitat isolation. Their protection is particularly significant where development pressures have rendered protected areas increasingly isolated and incapable, by themselves, of sustaining viable elephant populations. The conservation of these corridors therefore requires their identification, legal protection and integration into land-use and development planning, including where necessary, protection beyond the boundaries of existing Protected Areas. The protection of elephant corridors is thus not merely a species-specific conservation measure. It serves the broader objective of maintaining landscape connectivity, ecological resilience and the integrity of interconnected forest ecosystems. In this sense, safeguarding the movement of elephants contributes to safeguarding the ecological processes that sustain the landscape itself, and consequently has significance extending to the larger public interest in environmental conservation.

The importance of Elephant Corridors was elaborated by the Supreme Court in HOSPITALITY ASSN. OF MUDUMALAI V. IN DEFENCE OF ENVIRONMENT & ANIMALS [(2020) 10 SCC 589] as follows:

It is true that the object of land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good. The lands may be acquired for various projects which are covered under the scope of ‘public purpose.’ However, in our view, no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental and ecological conservation. As important as it is to encourage development and urbanisation, the same must be done while balancing the interests of the environment and its species. The proposed Suryanagar Project aims to give affordable and well-planned housing plots to the allottees and the general public being the residents, but the same is done at the cost of displacing the wildlife and depriving them of their natural habitat. It is a settled and enduring sentiment that “there is no place like home.” Yet, the actions of the Respondents, as borne out from the record, compel this Court to confront a disquieting question: whether the same fundamental principle of a secure and undisturbed home is to be denied to wildlife. The elephants in question, for whom these corridors constitute not merely a passage but an essential part of their natural habitat and existence, cannot be treated as occupants without rights whose homes may be displaced at will.

Housing is not the only requirement for human existence. Ecology, wildlife, forest, water streams etc., all are equally important for human existence. We are, therefore, of the view that since the project in question itself falls within the Bannerghatta National Park Eco-Sensitive Zone of 268.96 Sq.Kms., the whole project is misconceived and would have irreversible ecological, environmental and wildlife related consequences. Therefore, the entire land acquisition proceedings are nothing but an exercise without undertaking the relevant considerations such as, scientific study of environment impact assessment, socio-ecological factors etc., as flagged by the CEC.

We, therefore, allow the appeals filed by the landowners and quash the impugned land acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The appeals filed by the KHB stand dismissed.

Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.